MOVIE: Notes on a Scandal

[Bob]

This could have been a great movie. It was destroyed by poor editing, poor choices of the director, poor executive oversight, and quite possibly, the MPAA rating system. The following scenes were wholly unnecessary, totally inappropriate, and added absolutely NOTHING to this film:

1. Cellphone text message which was extremely explicit and vulgar. The point could have been made without the audience having to see it.

2. Phone voice mail message which, too, was extremely explicit and vulgar. Message could have been made without the audience having to hear it.

3. Cate Blanchett taking a dump. What the hell did this have to do with anything in this film? What's next? Changing of tampons?!

I suspect all of these extraneous scenes were specifically included in order to bump up the MPAA rating from PG-13 to R. This has been done for several films, most notably in "ET - the Extraterrestial." In that film, which otherwise would have been rated "G," one of the little kids calls another kid "penis breath" at the kitchen table. Bingo! Instant PG!

I do NOT recommend anyone seeing this film. Save your cash for something with more common sense.

[Bob]

Another possibly great movie, ruined by excess and sloppy editing. Examples:

1. Scene: Lead character is in a bar. Every other word out of his mouth is "f---." Not only did this contribute nothing to the movie, the entire scene failed to carry the story forward. A complete waste of 5 minutes.

2. Scene: Lead character is in the Alaska wilderness. He's screaming at the top of his lungs, jumping up and down, "I'm F----- hungry!" Thanks for sharing (right!)

Overall, this film could have been chopped by at least 10 minutes, resulting in a better film.

PS -- the soundtrack was truly bad. Horrible "original" music. Mark Isham or Thomas Newman should have scored it.

[MidtownGuy]

Notes on a Scandal was an excellent film and I recommend it to all.
Bob, those scenes you cited are what is called portraying reality.
If Disney innocence is what you want, Ratatouille is playing at a theater near you.

[Bob]

Interesting discussion. I don't need Disney, nor am I asking for it. I'm simply suggesting that the tens of thousands of films made before 1970 didn't have much of a problem telling a story without resorting to objectionable, rude language. And, we can tell good stories today without serving up the gutter.

I'm all for reality, but the reality pushed down our throats today by Hollywood is that everybody uses filthy language in public and that's it's quite normal to do so. It's not appropriate, and it's not normal.

The first guy who uses that kind of language in my office gets tossed out, or suspended. I suggest that because we can keep a civil tongue, we should.

[MidtownGuy]

Agree with you that it is preferable to keep a civil tongue, but in some situations in life it just doesn't happen, us being the emotional creatures that we are.

In the office of course one must remain professional and a gutter mouth just isn't the move, presumably one remains sufficiently professional in business matters that

vulgarities arising from passions (such as in the movie) would not be spoken. (Of course, I use to have plenty of bosses that I'd overhear cussing up a storm when a client didn't pay, etc.)

You could say that in the past Hollwood told stories in a 'cleaner' way, but then some of the situations explored in that movie would have never been in a movie back then either.

The whole theme would be taboo. So, if you disapprove in general of that movie being made, that's a different discussion. I would just suggest that the scenes would most likely,

in real life, contain some swearing, and this movie was made to be gritty and real, shocking in plotline and characters, so

the swearing and bathroom scene etc. were all part of the "feel". Granted, it isn't for everyone's tastes, but a great many people will find it entertaining in a disturbing and challenging way,

so I wanted to represent another opinion on the film.

[Zerlina]

Agree with you that it is preferable to keep a civil tongue, but in some situations in life it just doesn't happen, us being the emotional creatures that we are.

In the office of course one must remain professional and a gutter mouth just isn't the move, presumably one remains sufficiently professional in business matters that

vulgarities arising from passions (such as in the movie) would not be spoken. (Of course, I use to have plenty of bosses that I'd overhear cussing up a storm when a client didn't pay, etc.)

You could say that in the past Hollwood told stories in a 'cleaner' way, but then some of the situations explored in that movie would have never been in a movie back then either.

The whole theme would be taboo. So, if you disapprove in general of that movie being made, that's a different discussion. I would just suggest that the scenes would most likely,

in real life, contain some swearing, and this movie was made to be gritty and real, shocking in plotline and characters, so

the swearing and bathroom scene etc. were all part of the "feel". Granted, it isn't for everyone's tastes, but a great many people will find it entertaining in a disturbing and challenging way,

so I wanted to represent another opinion on the film.

Dear MidTown... but... what kind of movie is it? Do you know if it's already out in european cinemas?

[MidtownGuy]

Hmmm...I'm not sure if it played in Europe yet, but I think so.

Basically it is about a married, upper class woman in her 40's who is now working as a teacher and she has a disastrous affair with a horny young boy, maybe 15 years old, who is her student. Meanwhile, an older woman sees them having sexual relations and blackmails her, controlling her in a very manipulative way.

This is a psychological thriller with twists and turns; many times I was yelling at the TV screen because the characters were so reckless and crazy. It was a very good movie, the acting was top notch. You can't take your eyes away from it!